Letter to Congressman Chaffetz about a "Balanced Budget Amendment" he's going to propose.

Dear Congressman Chaffetz:

As a registered voter and a constituent of yours in Utah District #3, I thought you wouldn't mind a brief note from me on the topic of your proposed Constitutional Amendment attempt that would be initiated by you to seek to convince the U.S. Congress to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment. These two articles have already introduced your idea to Utahans:

http://deseretnews.co...
http://www.sltrib.com...

Congressman Chaffetz, I wondered if you were aware that there is no need for a Balanced Budget Amendment, since Congress already has the power to balance the budget at any time simply by voting a majority vote to do so?

What's needed in America are citizens, an electorate, who understand that government should live within its income; voters who would force out of office spendthrift Congressmen who continue to spend more that revenue collections, year after year, leading us into over $11 Trillion of indebtedness.

What's needed are Congressmen who actually obey the Constitution and only pass legislation that is in compliance with the Constitution, that is that does not go beyond the few enumerated powers granted to Congress and Presidents. What's needed is an understanding among Americans and Congressmen that socialist programs (i.e. Medicare, Medicaid, social security's ponzi scheme), socialist bailouts, and unconstitutional wars, unconstitutional foreign aid, and governmental departments are milking America of her wealth and should not be voted for.

In 2001, the Utah Legislature, without a dissenting vote, passed HJR-15, a resolution to rescind all of Utah's applications to Congress to hold an Article V Convention, or what's often called a "Constitutional Convention," Con-con for short. Up until then, Utah's Legislature thought that a national, Constitutional Convention to amend the Constitution, that is an Article V Convention, should be assembled in order to get the already rejected Balanced Budget Amendment passed. In other words, assemble a convention to run the risk that the Convention might propose dozens, or hundreds of amendments to our Constitution, even to the point of becoming a "runaway convention" and offering a completely different form of government to the states for ratification, in order to possibly pass one amendment, a Balanced Budget Amendment.

U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch had often told Utah Legislators that they should keep their call for a Con-con open essentially in order to pressure Congress into passing a Balanced Budget Amendment. So Senator Hatch was willing to risk a runaway Convention for possible passage of a Balanced Budget Amendment. Not, in this voter's opinion, a sound move, but instead a very dangerous move.

Be careful your proposal doesn't lead towards a call for an Article V Convention! Patriotic Utahans have already been through this fight before to preserve our Constitution from such a convention. The Founders intended the Article V Convention to be available as a "bloodless revolution" if needed to change forms of government. What's needed is a Congressional and presidential return to obedience to the strictures and provisions of the Constitution, not a redesign of that governing document.

Sincerely,

Bliss W. Tew, Constituent
btew@jbs.org

cc: JBS Leaders and friends in Utah County and Salt Lake County.

On 1/3/2009, Congressman Chaffetz replied via email:

---

Thanks for the note. I agree it is within the power of the Congress to act responsibly, but they have proven they are unable to achieve it. It works for the people of Utah because it is in our state constitution.


Thanks for the note.


Jason Chaffetz

Rob Alexander wrote that there are "Two good ways to communicate with Jason are through Facebook and Twitter. You can add Jason as a friend on Facebook at http://www.facebook.c... and/or follow him on Twitter at http://twitter.com/ja... "

It's important to note, as was noted on page 7 of the January 5, 2009 issue of THE NEW AMERICAN, that Ohio's legislature, December 10, 2008, was considering HJR 8, a resolution to apply to Congress for an Article V Convention in order to bring up a Balanced Budget Amendment. The article noted, "Ohio would have become the 33rd State to make a con-con call based on a balanced-budget amendment. And even though at least 10 states, Alabama (1988), Florida (1988), Louisiana (1990), Idaho (1999), Utah (2001), North Dakota (2001), Arizona (2003), Virginia (2004), South Carolina (2004), and Georgia (2004), have already rescinded their con-con calls for a balanced-budget amendment and for other purposes over the past 20 years, pro con-con forces would argue that these rescissions don't count and that only one more state would be needed to force a constitutional convention." Thus, our constitution could be at risk of a runaway Article V Convention. So this is a danger we should avoid.

Thus the issue of Congressman Chaffetz bringing up a Balanced-budget Amendment in Congress is important as when, or if, such an attempt fails, frustrated State Legislators might more easily be convinced by the pro con-con crowd to turn to calling for an Article V Convention. I wondered who put the idea of seeking a Balanced-budget Amendment in Congressman Chaffetz's ear in the first place? Could it have been Senator Orrin Hatch who had attempted to keep Utah's legislature from rescinder their application for an Article V Convention based on Legislator's desire for a blanced-budget Amendment?

Remember too, if a balanced-budget Amendment were passed, Congress could balance the budget in some very unpleasant ways such as raising taxes without reducing their spending, or printing greenbacks to pay federal government costs, another method of taxation through inflation which was used during the War Between the States.